Nudity in RPG books?

[Afrodyte]

But doesn't that mean you oppose virtually each and every use of nudity in roleplaying game products, whenever it has appeared or had scant clothing used as a substitute?

If you assume that each and every use of nudity in RPG products is dehumanizing, then yes, I would. However, not all of it is such, so I don't. However, I'm usually sighing out of boredom rather than feeling indignant.

 

[Sir Elton]

Part of the problem, as I think I said before, is that women have an extra 'zone' of 'evil naughtiness'.

Thanks, you have demonstrated why I have embraced nudism, and why I'm raising my kids to be nudist. I don't want my kids to live with the body shame other parents impose on their children.

All in all, I don't mind nudity one way or the other, but I want more variety. Does it mean I want everyone to be unattractive? Certainly not. But can we please show more ways that the human body can be beautiful?

Now to return on topic. It's simple, actually. Nudity is our natural state, and I agree with Afrodyte on this point. RPG books that show nudity should be equal opportunity. The human body is beautiful in it's own right, clothed or unclothed.

 

[s/LaSH]

I voted #2, because anything more than that is likely to be... distracting on a biological level.

Things should make sense.

Nudity is just another thing. If it's not needed, well, I wouldn't use it, partially because it would draw a negative reaction, partially because the powerful human drive of laziness demands it. If it is needed, then go f'rit.

But where is it needed?

'Realism' and 'appeal' are the two big factors here. Appeal is probably a dodgy factor, but that doesn't mean it's not valid - just invalid to most people. Realism, on the other hand, is quite valid to my mind.

And for all the talk of Peleponesian battlenudity as separate from the Medieval European Paradigm, I think you'll find that nudity is more common than you'd imagine. Do you know when Italian peasants stopped working the fields naked? The 1800s.

I'll refer to my webcomic for a moment. Therein, I chickened out from showing things I was eminently justified in doing. One of the heroes, Lorenzo, is, in fact, a Venetian peasant, working the fields when evil goblins attack - but I drew him with trousers. Another hero, Thetis, is from a subaquatic culture and is so well-insulated she can comfortably walk through snow with no appreciable discomfort; yet I draw her with her bits covered, despite the historical tendency for people with no regard for sunburn or cold to go almost completely without clothing. This is historical inaccuracy. Why did I do it? Because I was scared, I guess. And today, I might not make those same choices.

Something else to consider, this time concerning archetypes of women in art: Until recently, life was short. People getting to the point where their hair became silver was rare. An old man (or woman) would probably be in their 40s. The extremely-aged are oddities in such a paradigm. This doesn't excuse the perpetuity of 20-something female characters, of course, but it is an interesting perspective.

Oh, and I agree - we need more beefcake. This message brought to you by my Sense of Balance.

Nudity can be a powerful tool for the conveyance of information - the example with the Abyssal campaign above is a good example. Another example, perhaps, is from the current Marvel MAX series Supreme Power:

Spoiler

When Power Princess emerges from her tomb, she does so utterly naked, and about a hundred years old. She remains naked for quite some time, but quickly and callously reverts to 'perfect' body type - and the way it's done won't leave you smiling.

I don't need Little Timmy reading books with nudity, and some sort of rating system might be in order. But I don't want to cut out a whole, interesting facet of human existance either.

 

[Incenjucar]

Thanks, you have demonstrated why I have embraced nudism, and why I'm raising my kids to be nudist. I don't want my kids to live with the body shame other parents impose on their children.


Now to return on topic. It's simple, actually. Nudity is our natural state, and I agree with Afrodyte on this point. RPG books that show nudity should be equal opportunity. The human body is beautiful in it's own right, clothed or unclothed.

*shrugs* Do as you will. I personally don't see any difference between male and female chests, except that, like with -all- body parts, I prefer the female ones (I don't even really care to hang out with guys if I can help it). Really, the only required clothing in any situation is in regards to health. Leaving your mucous membranes more or less exposed is going to cause health problems, and, for those women with bouncing bosoms, nasty sagging. Beyond that, it's not important. But health is a heck of a lot more important than whether or not someone goes "oooh!" when they see pink. And hey, if you have daughters, they'll be -very- popular (males, not so much -- they'll soon learn that guys are much more interested in peeping than ladies are, on average). Just make sure you keep a way to defend them on hand, and you have a well-locked fence. Too many creeps out there.

 

[Kalendraf]

Until recently, life was short. People getting to the point where their hair became silver was rare. An old man (or woman) would probably be in their 40s. The extremely-aged are oddities in such a paradigm.

That's a very valid point that is easily overlooked by our modern viewpoint of the world. In a fantasy world, lifespans could theoretically be longer (magic to slow aging) or shorter (exotic diseases, plagues, constant warring, etc). Considering that many fantasy worlds use medieval europe as a starting point, the lifespan of that era should probably be used as well. Anyone reaching 40 was indeed quite long-lived in that period.

Does that mean that all the artwork should depict young, healthy able-bodied peoples in their 20's and 30's? No, but it does mean that having fewer "old" people depicted may be realistic...well at least realistic in a fantasy world sense.

Injuries of this time period were often untreatable, so lost limbs, or lost eyes might be more common. Even if magical healing is available, not every commoner may have the funds to pay for such aid. Artwork could reflect this, though it might make the characters seem like pirates if they are given peg-legs, hooks and eyepatches. We could have a mostly beef-cake/cheese-cake figure missing a limb or wearing a patch. Strange? Maybe, but probably more accurate, and perhaps more interesting from a story standpoint as well...

 

[Dogbrain]

If you assume that each and every use of nudity in RPG products is dehumanizing, then yes, I would.

That appears to be the primary use in current products. Fun and happy naked (e.g., some of Phil Foglio's work) seems to be much less common than woman as commerce object--that's even true of scantily-clad but technically not "nude" depictions.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

In a fantasy world, lifespans could theoretically be longer (magic to slow aging) or shorter (exotic diseases, plagues, constant warring, etc). Considering that many fantasy worlds use medieval europe as a starting point, the lifespan of that era should probably be used as well. Anyone reaching 40 was indeed quite long-lived in that period.

Does that mean that all the artwork should depict young, healthy able-bodied peoples in their 20's and 30's? No, but it does mean that having fewer "old" people depicted may be realistic...well at least realistic in a fantasy world sense.

Injuries of this time period were often untreatable, so lost limbs, or lost eyes might be more common. Even if magical healing is available, not every commoner may have the funds to pay for such aid. Artwork could reflect this, though it might make the characters seem like pirates if they are given peg-legs, hooks and eyepatches. We could have a mostly beef-cake/cheese-cake figure missing a limb or wearing a patch. Strange? Maybe, but probably more accurate, and perhaps more interesting from a story standpoint as well...

First, remember that when statisticians say that 'average lifespan is 35' they are adding upp the age at death of everyone and dividing it by the number of people. the rate of infant mortality was staggeringly high. assuming that it is 30% (i.e. 30% of children die before their 10th birthday) then 30% must be 60-70 in order to pull the statistics back up to the 'average 35.' I remember reading that for boy children, once you've reached your teens you've survived the childhood ailments and have a pretty good chance of living to a ripe old age. Girls, I'm afraid, continued to die during childbirth (becoming a nun is a good career option, and a good survival trait), but if they survived that, women had a tendency to last even longer than their menfolk.

As to injuries etc. surely this will depend on the priestsand the availability of healing magics, or even the level of technology available to your local Chirugeon. Mediaeval medicine was dreadful in Europe, but the Moslem world and the Far East had better techniques and understanding. Again, this is down to your fantasy religions.

Nudity and scantily clad women are nice to look at but i wouldn't my kids to think that I'm a dirty old man (grumpy, I don't mind) and there is, usually no good reason for nudity in games materials. Historical context is a valid argument, but it all depends on your game world. Go naked on Hârn and it's not 'shrinkage' you'll be worried abiout, it's death from exposure (insert 'exposure' joke here). As for hot climates, nudity may work in the southern Med., but any further south and you need to be protected from the sun.

GOM

 

[Berandor]

What are people afraid of? That their kids will grow up and have sex?

I realize that I formulated the question provocatively, but I really cannot understand some of the concerns levvied here.

For one, I agree that nudity does not equal sex. When I see a documentary about native tribes in Africe (or somewhere), and the people are very scantily clad, often exposing at least the breast (even the female breast), I don't think, "yummy!"
In fact, I think that enticing clothing often is much more titillating than actual nudity (it involves your imagination).

Now, I don't want nudity per se; I agree that any inclusion of nudity or violence in any book should be done tastefully, and hopefully to serve a point: either illustrating, or shocking, or, well, whatever point it's trying to make. If it serves just as titillation, however, I wouldn't condone it; but then, I think there are a lot of purely titillating images out there that don't involve nudity, and I don't condone them, either.

I also see a problem with our cultural tendency to stigmatize nudity, esp. the female breast, as something "dirty". It seems that we as a culture have a very unhealthy look towards nudity (and sexuality, but that's neither here nor there).

Finally, many people here have stated that we need to be careful lest someone else - not us - be offended or feel insulted by the inclusion of nudity. While I agree that one should always be thoughtful of one's actions and their results with regards to a larger group of people than simply oneself, there is a point when trying to streamline and mass-market something becomes too much. Just because someone might be envious of my having a car doesn't mean I should stop driving, does it?
And trying to be as unoffensively as possible, so that everybody can enjoy a product, leaves us with a bland product in the end. We get "Welcome to Mooseport" as opposed to "Wag the Dog" or "Dr. Strangelove". I understand that this is a current trend not just incolving nudity and/or sexuality, but why can't we let the people decide for themselves what they want? If a product contains nudity, and you don't like it or the way it is depicted, don't buy it. I didn't buy "Quintessential Rogue", and I didn't take a look at the other Quintessential books, because I thought the nudity in there was overdone. I wasn't offended by it, I simply found it silly.

I also agree that we'd need more beef-cake images, more diversity, and more engaging themes in a book's writing, including (but not to the point of exclusivity) nudity.

 

[Turanil]

This is a valid concern. How do all of you feel about nudity in your RPG books?

Frankly, I have no problem with nudity (especially when it involves beautiful women), but i don't think it pertains to RPGs. As such, I don't see any need (other than that of frustrated nerds who play but are unable to date) for nudity art in a rpg book.

Nudity is evil! It shouldn't be in our RPG Books! FOR GODSAKES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

That said, every time I see or hear someone complaining about nudity in rpg BECAUSE of the younger audience, I am really upset. RPGs are before all about slaying, about killing, about violence. What's this hypocrisis about telling nudity art shouldn't be in a rpg book, because of the younger audience that may read it?? So description of violence is then perfectly normal for a young audience?

 

[Dogbrain]

For one, I agree that nudity does not equal sex.

Too bad the vast majority of roleplaying publishers seem to think that they must go together--look at how they prefer to depict women when said women are undressed or scantily dressed. Looks to me like the preference WITHIN THE INDUSTRY is to presume sex.